Some counter points to some of the discussion (which is awesome by the way - I'd like to talk about P180's every day).

Avantair. They may have hurt the market for resale but they made me a believer that the stories about reliability were bunk. 700-800 hours a year can't be done with big reliability issues. Now, they did create their own problems, and issues for their airplanes with maintenance tracking for which there is a simple solution in the secondary market - don't buy an ex-Avantair plane.

As to 135 desirability which Matt brings up that hasn't been my experience. I've had two 135 operators really come after me to have my plane on their cert. One flies 4 of their own birds and has strong demand. It's as fast as a lot of jets with a better cabin and leases for a lot less. An issue for the operators is that qualified pilots are tougher to find.

Yes, a 441 has a much better range. I looked at one of the "Queen of Fleet" birds with impeccable pedigree, new panel, etc. and just couldn't do it. 40 years old for starters and the cabin, fit, finish, etc. just aren't in the same league. Heck, I looked at everything. Queen of the fleet Commanders, command the same kind of money as a P180, have great range and nice enough cabins but they are slower and, well, just not in the same league. I LOVE KA's but couldn't find the range, cabin, speed, etc. that the P180 has. The PC12, once insistently referred to on BT as the best airplane ever created by man, has a great cabin and low operating costs but is painfully slow. I had a TBM. Awesome plane but doesn't have the cabin, altitude or pressurization system (which, in the P180, combined with lack of vibration and low noise make it an incredibly comfortable and nontiring plane to fly long distance). What have I missed? To equal the P180 for speed, distance, cabin and comfort you have to go mid sized jet and much greater cost.

Someone mentioned DOM as a concern. Tom G is right when he says the only reason things don't sell is price (when properly exposed to the market). I bought a plane that was on the market for over 450 days. I was the second buyer to try and it took my second pass to get the owner to reality. That seems to be fairly common from what I've seen and from other's experiences. It is less of a commodity than a KA so I would expect turnover to be slower but truthfully, after looking hard and making offers on more than one plane before buying, the DOM issue is simply owners with unrealistic expectations. The currently smaller number of planes on the market is an indication that a lot of owners have figured that out and moved on.

Every turbine shop in the world can work on a KA. But a lot can work on a P180 (more than Commanders or 441 from my research). I have a good shop on my home field, ICJS is 90 miles away and Broady less than 150. So, not a problem for me! I suspect that for many prospective turbo prop owners it isn't much different if you check around.

There has to be a typo in there - you mention a payload of 1,132 but your ZFW minus EW is 695 lbs. I'm guessing your ZFW is typo'ed.

I think Piaggio in many ways misunderstood their own market.

And to understand why, you have to understand that they come from a distinctively European point of view. The reality is that in Europe, the owner-flown private aircraft owner that uses it for business is a very rare thing. This was never designed for that. Piaggio designed this to be an alternative to 2-crew flown jets in commercial/official capacities. The fact that it was certified as single pilot is almost by accident and not something that would become as important as it did (in fact, this type is almost always crewed with 2 pilots in European capacities, showing you that they were not clued in to its USP).

I think they thought the market was twofold: as a more efficient alternative to 2-crew business jets in the US, and as a government/military/medevac planes in Europe. On paper that looks like a substantial market.

But.

They didn't account for these facts:

1. Optics. Rich people spending $7 mill, would rather not turn up in "the little propeller plane" when their competition turns up in a jet. It may seem silly, but these things matter for that clientele.

2. It was over-priced when you take point 1 into account. Piaggio's point of view was always: "well, it's as fast as a jet, so should be priced as one". No, because the optics are different.

3. It had a maintenance schedule clearly designed for institutional users or big fleets - once again showing its European provenance.

If Piaggio would simply have targeted the owner-flown market or the SP business plane owners from the get-go, I believe they would have been very successful. That's where this plane belongs. And now after 30 years on the market and compressed used prices, that's where its finding its market. They just didn't know what they had on their hands - they were trying to sell something it wasn't.

Like Anthony said, if I was CEO for Piaggio, I'd implement a swift re-certification with a Garmin G3000 panel for the EVO, get rid of most calendar items, push even harder on the "Ferrari of the Sky" marketing and target only owner-flown or smaller business owners that would otherwise be looking at SETP's and VLJ's etc. That's its market.

Just want to point out that 9800 lbs is MAXIMUM ZFW.

Real world values depends on A/C configuration (interior, options) and can vary on average from 7900 lbs for an old Avanti to 8200 lbs for an EVO with ER tanks.

Daniele

Adam,

I think you hit the mail on the head!

-ad

One of the reason of the high price is because of the construction that requires a lot of skilled manpower.

Due to the low production rate and to the complexity of some techniques, the production line was never automated and the aircraft structure was never optimized to allow faster and cheaper assembly.

Just consider the tail section, including vertical stabilizer, was full composite on the first batch of airplanes and abandoned later for a traditional metallic construction also because of this (not enough volumes to keep the 1990 complexity of a composite production).

The P180 Avanti came to market in 1990. Granted they were never built in high (for GA) volumes, but they've been around for a steady 30 years now.

So I think the design and build can be declared a success. It's my sincere hope the Evo extends the run to 40 years and beyond.

Just a quick discovery on the gear overhaul. I've been digging into it a little bit as I price negotiate on a plane.

I had heard a number of times that it was 400K+ overhaul. I contacted a few shops and all of them came under 180K flat rate. And closer to 160K with a longer 8-week turnaround.

That's less than half and was a welcomed surprise. I got three Part145 shops that gave me those prices. Now, the gear certainly doesn't need an overhaul for us private owners, but it's a nice leverage item when buying the plane.

Matt,

The cost of the newer gear design is about $400k. Advantages are longer interval between overhaul and lower overhaul costs. I think this may represent an advantage for primarily 135 or other high volume operators who will own the plane a long time or create a lot of cycles. I've flown planes with both kinds of gear and the only difference I could detect was there is no noisy rumble when extending landing lights as they are mounted on the gear in the Magnaghi gear.

I have the same information on costs of overhaul. One thing to bear in mind though is that those costs can go up, sometimes significantly, dependent on what parts have to be replaced. The more cycles on the gear at OH the more you can expect costs to deviate from the numbers you cite. Also, the firm that does the OH at those figures is considered pretty good but not as good as AVPRO who charges more.

Lastly, gear OH isn't required for Part 91 but it is certainly factored into market price and you pay now or later. In other words if you don't do the OH you're going to get less when you sell. It was certainly a piece of the negotiations on my airplane.

Lot of comparisons to the PC12 here

Play on!!!

Tony, I'm jealous man, just plain ol jealous.

Quick question to the guys with Avanti IIs - is there or where are 120v outlets typically placed in the cabin?

I did a site visit for a potential buy earlier this week, looked it over with my broker and took a bunch of photos. Starting thinking today that I didn't see any cabin outlets (or USB..but didn't expect any). Going through the photos, I'm not seeing them either.

I sent a note through the broker but thought I might get a quicker answer. Not a huge deal, just curious mostly.

115 vac / 60 Hz outlets are standard from S/N 1156+. Two in the cockpit, two on club seats sidewalls.

Daniele

Hmm, its well past that serial cut-off but I don't see them so perhaps all my photos are just missing the right angle. If I get an updated picture, I'll posted it for future reference.

Mine has outlets in cockpit and between rear clubs.

I installed USB plugs throughout cabin too.

It's a very nice setup for the pax.

They are in a side pocket that has a cover over them in the cabin.